Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Societal and technological progress as sewing an ever-growing, ever-changing, patchy, and polychrome quilt

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read AI alignment should stop assuming one true morality and start managing conflict.

desk verdict A clear, well-written pluralist critique of universal alignment, but the central feasibility argument—that decentralized feedback can bind superhuman AI—is asserted, not shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05197 v1 pith:2TN6SSCO submitted 2025-05-08 cs.AI cs.CY

Joel Z. Leibo , Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets , William A. Cunningham , Sébastien Krier , Manfred Diaz , Simon Osindero This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CY
keywords AIalignmentvaluepluralismappropriatenessconflictmanagementpolycentricgovernancesocialnormsculturalevolutionsafety
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the dominant 'align AI with human values' framing rests on an optional and doubtful assumption: the Axiom of Rational Convergence, the idea that rational agents under ideal conditions converge on a single ethics. The authors treat persistent moral disagreement as the normal, permanent condition and replace moral unification with conflict management. They propose an 'appropriateness framework' in which AI systems are embedded in the same social technologies—conventions, norms, and institutions—that let diverse human communities coexist. Four design principles follow: contextual grounding, community customization, continual adaptation, and polycentric governance. If the paper is right, AI safety research should focus less on discovering a universal value function and more on building institutions that keep disputes non-violent.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'appropriateness framework,' which treats appropriateness—the socially learned, context-relative match between behavior and situation—as the key social technology binding a pluralistic society. It is carried by four design principles: contextual grounding (giving AI rich situational data), community customization (letting communities shape the norms governing their AI), continual adaptation (learning from sanctions and feedback over time), and polycentric governance (distributing oversight across overlapping centers of authority). The Axiom of Rational Convergence serves as the rejected alternative: it is framed as an optional axiom, like the parallel postulate in geometry, whose acceptance shapes the entire theory of alignment.

What would settle it

A concrete test: run a cross-cultural deliberation experiment in which groups with genuinely different moral frameworks discuss a contested issue under ideal conditions—full information, no coercion, ample time. If they reliably converge on the same norms, the Axiom of Rational Convergence survives and the case for abandoning it collapses; if they persist in disagreement while still coordinating through shared procedural rules, the appropriateness framework is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Axiom of Rational Convergence can be dropped without collapsing AI safety and ethics, and that choosing to drop it is not arbitrary but empirically and pragmatically better. Because even fact-like questions are governed by culturally contingent epistemic norms, the paper declines to assume convergence for any kind of question. Instead it takes disagreements as basic elements and asks how social technologies—conventions, norms, institutions—manage conflict and enable coordination. Applying this to AI yields the appropriateness framework: AI failures are not 'misalignment' with an abstract ideal but context-inappropriate behavior, and the remedy is a decentralized ecosystem of context-specialized systems governed polycentrically. The paper's own claim is that this shift from the metaphor of the astronomer seeing a true value to the metaphor of the tailor sewing a quilt is both desirable and urgent for preventing social instability as advanced AI is integrated into diverse societies.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that human societies can remain stable without convergence on values, relying only on conventions, norms, and institutions to manage conflict; if those institutions themselves require underlying value convergence, or if powerful AI can simply overpower institutional constraints, the central recommendation weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AI safety should be reframed from aligning AI with a single set of human values to managing conflict between communities with persistently different values.
  • Deployment should favor many context-specialized AI systems over a single universal one; a one-size-fits-all model defaults to blandness and fails in every context.
  • Power-seeking by advanced AI is best countered not by trying to eliminate the motive itself but by polycentric institutions and monitoring-and-sanctioning mechanisms that prevent any single actor from concentrating overwhelming power.
  • Pursuing context-aware AI must go hand-in-hand with privacy-preserving technical and governance solutions, since privacy is itself a norm about the appropriate flow of information.
  • Existential-risk mitigation must solve the start-up and free-rider collective action problems; treating preference heterogeneity as mere noise makes proposed solutions socially unstable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An extension the authors leave implicit: the framework predicts that in multi-agent systems with heterogeneous values, a convergence-seeking alignment objective will produce more brittle cooperation than an appropriateness-seeking objective; this could be tested in agent-based simulations before full AI deployment.
  • If appropriateness is fundamentally local and polycentric, then global AI governance proposals that rest on a universal normative consensus may be self-defeating; the more consistent design is a dispute-resolution architecture that does not require substantive value agreement.
  • A practical evaluation consequence not spelled out in the paper: instead of scoring alignment with a single value function, one could measure 'patch-local' context errors across diverse communities and treat low context-error rates as the primary safety signal, which would directly operationalize the paper's core claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that mainstream AI alignment research implicitly rests on an 'Axiom of Rational Convergence'—the idea that under ideal epistemic conditions rational agents will converge on a single ethics—and treats this premise as optional and doubtful. It proposes an 'appropriateness framework' grounded in conflict theory, cultural evolution, multi-agent systems, and institutional economics, with four design principles: contextual grounding, community customization, continual adaptation, and polycentric governance. The paper recommends shifting the alignment metaphor from moral unification to conflict management, and asserts that taking this step is both desirable and urgent.

Significance. If accepted, the paper would reframe AI safety as a problem of designing social-technical institutions that manage irreducible value conflict, connecting alignment research to Ostrom-style polycentric governance and Hadfield-style legal microfoundations. The paper is genuinely interdisciplinary and offers a coherent alternative to convergence-based approaches; it also names some of its own limitations, such as the privacy trade-off of contextual grounding and the vulnerability of feedback mechanisms. However, it contains no formal model, experimental data, or falsifiable predictions, so its value is agenda-setting rather than demonstrative. The urgency claim is not supported by an analysis of timelines or failure modes, and the step from human institutions to constraints on much more capable AI is the key unsupported link.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, 'Navigating Context and Building a Pluralistic AI Ecosystem'.] The load-bearing feasibility claim is asserted, not argued. In the paragraph beginning 'One may ask what happens when AI systems become powerful enough to shape, manipulate, or simply ignore the feedback mechanisms themselves?', the paper states that the solution is 'to design robust, decentralized feedback mechanisms that become stronger, not weaker, in the face of attempts to manipulate them.' No mechanism, precedent, or formal argument is given for how such mechanisms can bind an agent that can shape, manipulate, or ignore them. Since the same section and the earlier 'Stitches That Bind' section explicitly invoke power-seeking ASI (Turner et al., 2021), the paper's central recommendation that the appropriateness framework is the right path for advanced AI depends on this point. The cited Ostrom and Hadfield-style results concern human communities with roughly symmetric sanctioning power and limited exit options; the paper does not explain how these results transfer to a superintelligent agent. Please add a concrete argument for feasibility, or scope the claim to AI systems whose capabilities do not exceed those of the governing community.
  2. [General, across Sections 1, 4, and 5.] The 'appropriateness framework' is not defined in this paper; it is imported wholesale from Leibo et al. (2024). Every substantive use of the term refers the reader to that prior work, e.g., 'what we call the appropriateness framework (Leibo et al., 2024)' and 'locally effective epistemic norms (Leibo et al., 2024).' As a standalone paper, this leaves the central proposal opaque: the four principles in the 'Navigating Context' section are stated programmatically, but the reader cannot assess what the framework is, what evidence supports it, or how it constrains design. Either include a self-contained summary of the framework's core definitions and any supporting evidence, or state explicitly that the paper's contribution is the metaphor-shift argument and not the framework itself.
  3. [Section 2, 'The Patchwork Quilt of Human Coexistence'.] The paper's treatment of the Axiom of Rational Convergence leaves its status unclear. It is called 'optional and doubtful' and 'not something to assume,' but the only direct evidence cited is the persistence of disagreement under ordinary conditions (Graham et al., 2009; Iyengar and Massey, 2019). Since the Axiom is stated as convergence in the limit of conversation under sufficiently ideal epistemic conditions, ordinary disagreement does not disconfirm it. The paper does not specify what empirical observation would count against the Axiom, nor does it explain how its own 'core assumption' differs from a competing axiom that could be adopted instead. This weakens the claim that the framework is more than an arbitrary alternative. Please clarify the epistemic status of the Axiom: is it merely a different starting point, or a false empirical claim, and what would the relevant evidence be?
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, 'The Patchwork Quilt of Human Coexistence'.] There are typographical spacing errors, e.g., 'epistemic normsthat' and 'governed byepistemic normsthat' in Section 2, and 'differentgeometries' in the introduction.
  2. [Section 2, 'The Patchwork Quilt of Human Coexistence'.] The word 'anatt¯a' contains a combining macron; use a proper Unicode character (anattā) or a transliteration without diacritics.
  3. [References.] The reference to 'Leibo et al. (2024)' appears multiple times without distinguishing between the framework, the epistemic-norm theory, and the appropriateness concept; consider giving a more precise citation or abbreviation on first use.
  4. [Final section, 'The Astronomer and the Tailor'.] The metaphors in this section are evocative but the section largely repeats earlier content; it could be shortened or converted into a conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's case for replacing alignment-as-unification with conflict management is a philosophically argued position, not a derivation whose conclusions are identical to its inputs.

full rationale

This manuscript is a position paper, not a formal derivation or a quantitative prediction, so the classic circularity patterns (fitted parameters renamed as predictions, equations reducing to definitions) do not apply. The central claim is that the Axiom of Rational Convergence is optional and doubtful and that AI safety would be better served by an appropriateness framework focused on conflict management. That claim is supported by independent external evidence and arguments: cultural-evolution research on causally opaque knowledge (Boyd et al.; Derex et al.; Henrich), persistent-disagreement findings (Graham et al.; Iyengar and Massey), and institutional economics (Ostrom; Hadfield and Weingast). The authors' self-citations to Leibo et al. 2024 supply the name and conceptual apparatus of 'appropriateness,' and repeated appeals to that prior paper are noticeable, but the present argument does not reduce to that citation by construction; it independently argues for the framework and for shifting the alignment metaphor. The prior computational work cited (Köster et al. 2022; Vinitsky et al. 2023) consists of falsifiable agent-based experiments rather than unverified assertions. The admitted gap that decentralized feedback mechanisms may not bind a superintelligent agent is a missing feasibility argument, which is a correctness limitation the paper itself acknowledges in the passage, located in the section 'Navigating Context and Building a Pluralistic AI Ecosystem,' about feedback mechanisms becoming 'stronger, not weaker' in the face of manipulation; it is not an example of circular reasoning. No equation or fitted value is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The circularity score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The essay's recommendations rest on several substantive empirical and philosophical assumptions about the nature of moral disagreement, the power of institutions, and the optionality of rational convergence. These are plausible and well-cited but are not established by the paper itself.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Persistent moral disagreement is the normal and enduring state of human societies.
    Core premise of the appropriateness framework; asserted with references to moral psychology and cultural evolution, not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption Stable coexistence can be achieved through conventions, norms, and institutions without convergence on values.
    Underpins the claim that conflict management can replace alignment; cited to Ostrom, Hadfield, and Weingast, but not demonstrated for advanced AI systems.
  • domain assumption The Axiom of Rational Convergence is independent of the rest of AI safety and ethics, and may be rejected without incoherence.
    The paper argues this by analogy to Euclidean parallel axioms (Section 2); this is an analogy, not a proof.
  • domain assumption Epistemic norms are as culturally contingent as moral norms, so the fact/opinion distinction is unreliable.
    Used to reject convergence even for factual questions; supported by selective citations, but stated as a general philosophical claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Societal and technological progress as sewing an ever-growing, ever-changing, patchy, and polychrome quilt." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TN6SSCO

@misc{pith2026250505197,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Societal and technological progress as sewing an ever-growing, ever-changing, patchy, and polychrome quilt},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TN6SSCO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05197}
}
read the original abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly placed in positions where their decisions have real consequences, e.g., moderating online spaces, conducting research, and advising on policy. Ensuring they operate in a safe and ethically acceptable fashion is thus critical. However, most solutions have been a form of one-size-fits-all "alignment". We are worried that such systems, which overlook enduring moral diversity, will spark resistance, erode trust, and destabilize our institutions. This paper traces the underlying problem to an often-unstated Axiom of Rational Convergence: the idea that under ideal conditions, rational agents will converge in the limit of conversation on a single ethics. Treating that premise as both optional and doubtful, we propose what we call the appropriateness framework: an alternative approach grounded in conflict theory, cultural evolution, multi-agent systems, and institutional economics. The appropriateness framework treats persistent disagreement as the normal case and designs for it by applying four principles: (1) contextual grounding, (2) community customization, (3) continual adaptation, and (4) polycentric governance. We argue here that adopting these design principles is a good way to shift the main alignment metaphor from moral unification to a more productive metaphor of conflict management, and that taking this step is both desirable and urgent.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LLM Economist: Large Population Models and Mechanism Design in Multi-Agent Generative Simulacra

    cs.MA 2025-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    The LLM Economist framework couples persona-conditioned worker agents with an in-context RL planner to search US-bracket tax schedules, yet its Saez benchmark is derived from the planner's own solution and its headlin...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Alexander

    S. Alexander. Conflict vs. mistake. Slate Star Codex, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Amodei, C

    D. Amodei, C. Olah, J. Steinhardt, P. Christiano, J. Schulman, and D. Man \'e . Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565, 2016

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Bicchieri

    C. Bicchieri. The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    N. Bostrom. Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    R. Boyd, P. J. Richerson, and J. Henrich. The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 0 (supplement\_2): 0 10918--10925, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Derex, J.-F

    M. Derex, J.-F. Bonnefon, R. Boyd, and A. Mesoudi. Causal understanding is not necessary for the improvement of culturally evolving technology. Nature human behaviour, 3 0 (5): 0 446--452, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Derex, J.-F

    M. Derex, J.-F. Bonnefon, R. Boyd, R. McElreath, and A. Mesoudi. Social learning preserves both useful and useless theories by canalizing learners’ exploration. Proceedings B, 292 0 (2039): 0 20242499, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Finnemore and K

    M. Finnemore and K. Sikkink. International norm dynamics and political change. International organization, 52 0 (4): 0 887--917, 1998

    work page 1998

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    R. Firth. Ethical absolutism and the ideal observer. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 12 0 (3): 0 317--345, 1952

    1952

  2. [10]

    A. P. Fiske. The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological review, 99 0 (4): 0 689, 1992

    1992

  3. [11]

    Ginges, S

    J. Ginges, S. Atran, D. Medin, and K. Shikaki. Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 0 (18): 0 7357--7360, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    H. Gintis. Social norms as choreography. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 9 0 (3): 0 251--264, 2010

    2010

  5. [13]

    Graham, J

    J. Graham, J. Haidt, and B. A. Nosek. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 96 0 (5): 0 1029, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    Habermas

    J. Habermas. The theory of communicative action: Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society, volume 1. Beacon press, 1985

    1985

  7. [15]

    G. K. Hadfield and B. R. Weingast. What is law? a coordination model of the characteristics of legal order. Journal of Legal Analysis, 4 0 (2): 0 471--514, 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    G. K. Hadfield and B. R. Weingast. Microfoundations of the rule of law. Annual Review of Political Science, 17: 0 21--42, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    Hadfield-Menell and G

    D. Hadfield-Menell and G. K. Hadfield. Incomplete contracting and ai alignment. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 417--422, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Hadfield-Menell, M

    D. Hadfield-Menell, M. Andrus, and G. Hadfield. Legible normativity for ai alignment: The value of silly rules. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 115--121, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Hampshire

    S. Hampshire. Justice Is Conflict. Princeton University Press, 1999

    1999

  12. [20]

    J. A. Harris, R. Boyd, and B. M. Wood. The role of causal knowledge in the evolution of traditional technology. Current Biology, 31 0 (8): 0 1798--1803, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    D. D. Heckathorn. The dynamics and dilemmas of collective action. American sociological review, pages 250--277, 1996

    1996

  14. [22]

    J. Henrich. The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous . Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    J. Henrich. Cultural evolution: Is causal inference the secret of our success? Current Biology, 31 0 (8): 0 R381--R383, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    economic man

    J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis, R. McElreath, M. Alvard, A. Barr, J. Ensminger, et al. “economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and brain sciences, 28 0 (6): 0 795--815, 2005

    2005

  17. [25]

    C. Heyes. Rethinking norm psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Iyengar and D

    S. Iyengar and D. S. Massey. Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 0 (16): 0 7656--7661, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Jagiello, C

    R. Jagiello, C. Heyes, and H. Whitehouse. Tradition and invention: The bifocal stance theory of cultural evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45: 0 e249, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    K \"o ster, K

    R. K \"o ster, K. R. McKee, R. Everett, L. Weidinger, W. S. Isaac, E. Hughes, E. A. Du \'e \ n ez-Guzm \'a n, T. Graepel, M. Botvinick, and J. Z. Leibo. Model-free conventions in multi-agent reinforcement learning with heterogeneous preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.09054, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    K \"o ster, D

    R. K \"o ster, D. Hadfield-Menell, R. Everett, L. Weidinger, G. K. Hadfield, and J. Z. Leibo. Spurious normativity enhances learning of compliance and enforcement behavior in artificial agents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 0 (3): 0 e2106028118, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    T. S. Kuhn. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press Chicago, 1962

    1962

  23. [31]

    J. Z. Leibo, A. S. Vezhnevets, M. Diaz, J. P. Agapiou, W. A. Cunningham, P. Sunehag, J. Haas, R. Koster, E. A. Du \'e \ n ez-Guzm \'a n, W. S. Isaac, G. Piliouras, S. M. Bileschi, I. Rahwan, and S. Osindero. A theory of appropriateness with applications to generative artificia...

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    L. Lessig. The regulation of social meaning. The University of Chicago Law Review, 62 0 (3): 0 943--1045, 1995

    1995

  25. [33]

    Machery and S

    E. Machery and S. Stich. The Moral/Conventional Distinction . In E. N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, S ummer 2022 edition, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    J. L. Mackie. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin, 1977

    1977

  27. [35]

    J. G. March and J. P. Olsen. The Logic of Appropriateness . In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science . Oxford University Press, 2011. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0024

    2011

  28. [36]

    Marwell and P

    G. Marwell and P. Oliver. The critical mass in collective action. Cambridge University Press, 1993

    1993

  29. [37]

    Mercier and D

    H. Mercier and D. Sperber. The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    S. E. Merry. Legal pluralism. Law & society review, 22 0 (5): 0 869--896, 1988

    1988

  31. [39]

    C. Mouffe. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social research, pages 745--758, 1999

    1999

  32. [40]

    Muehlhauser and C

    L. Muehlhauser and C. Williamson. Ideal advisor theories and personal cev. Machine Intelligence Research Institute, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    Narayanan and S

    A. Narayanan and S. Kapoor. AI as normal technology. Knight First Amendment Institute. KnightColumbia.Org, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    R. Nisbett. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why . Free Press, 2003

    2003

  35. [43]

    Nissenbaum

    H. Nissenbaum. Privacy as contextual integrity. Wash. L. Rev., 79: 0 119, 2004

    2004

  36. [44]

    D. C. North. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, 1990

    1990

  37. [45]

    E. Ostrom. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press, 1990

    1990

  38. [46]

    E. Ostrom. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    E. Ostrom. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20: 0 550--557, 2010

    2010

  40. [48]

    J. Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971

    1971

  41. [49]

    R. Rorty. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton university press, 1978/2009

    1978

  42. [50]

    R. Rorty. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Routledge, 1989

    1989

  43. [51]

    R. Rorty. Pragmatism as Anti-authoritarianism. Harvard University Press, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Sikkink and H

    K. Sikkink and H. J. Kim. The justice cascade: The origins and effectiveness of prosecutions of human rights violations. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 9 0 (1): 0 269--285, 2013

    2013

  45. [53]

    C. R. Sunstein. Social norms and social roles. Colum. L. Rev., 96: 0 903, 1996

    1996

  46. [54]

    C. S. Taber and M. Lodge. The illusion of choice in democratic politics: The unconscious impact of motivated political reasoning. Political Psychology, 37: 0 61--85, 2016

    2016

  47. [55]

    E. Turiel. The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge University Press, 1983

    1983

  48. [56]

    A. M. Turner, L. Smith, R. Shah, A. Critch, and P. Tadepalli. Optimal policies tend to seek power. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 23063--23074, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Ullmann-Margalit

    E. Ullmann-Margalit. The emergence of norms. OUP Oxford, 1977

    1977

  50. [58]

    Vinitsky, R

    E. Vinitsky, R. K \"o ster, J. P. Agapiou, E. A. Du \'e \ n ez-Guzm \'a n, A. S. Vezhnevets, and J. Z. Leibo. A learning agent that acquires social norms from public sanctions in decentralized multi-agent settings. Collective Intelligence, 2 0 (2): 0 26339137231162025, 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    M. Walzer. Thick and thin: Moral argument at home and abroad. University of Notre Dame Press, 1994

    1994

  52. [60]

    Wardhaugh and J

    R. Wardhaugh and J. M. Fuller. An introduction to sociolinguistics. John Wiley & Sons, 2021

    2021

  53. [61]

    Whitehouse

    H. Whitehouse. The ritual animal: Imitation and cohesion in the evolution of social complexity. Oxford University Press, 2021

    2021

  54. [62]

    Williams

    B. Williams. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Routledge, 1985

    1985

  55. [63]

    Yudkowsky

    E. Yudkowsky. Coherent extrapolated volition. Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, 2004

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.